What If Medicine’s First Principle Were Also Education’s?

What if state-sponsored schools had to prove they do more good than harm?

Primum non nocere, First, do no harm. As part of becoming a doctor, students at most medical colleges must take an oath, derived partly from the ancient Hippocratic oath, in which they declare their understanding that the first principle of medical practice is “do no harm.” Of course, many medical treatments do, necessarily, entail some harm; so what this principle means in practice is that any potential harm to a patient must be balanced against the projected benefit for that patient, and there must be good evidence that the benefit will outweigh the harm.

What if our compulsory schooling system had to provide evidence, for every child, that the benefit of its schooling outweighs the harm? Here’s little Suzy, 5 years old. The state says she has to start kindergarten; neither she nor her parents have any say in the matter (unless the parents are in a position to homeschool or afford some other means of meeting the state’s compulsory education requirement). What if the state were required, before they enrolled little Suzy, to prove that the institution they are forcing her into will, in all probability, benefit her more than it hurts her?

If the state had to do this—if they had to live up to a “do no harm” pledge—schooling as we know it would collapse. We would have a sudden, long-overdue educational revolution. In fact, even if the requirement were the less demanding one of proving that the schooling we provide benefits the average child, or most children, more than it hurts them, the system would collapse.

Compulsory schooling is an enormous intrusion into the lives of children and families, and its harm is well documented.

I’ve sometimes heard from defenders of forced schooling what I refer to as the “bad-tasting medicine” justification. Schooling, they say, may not be pleasant, but it is necessary for the person’s long-term well-being. Never mind that most medicines take a couple of seconds to swallow while compulsory schooling takes 11 years (or 13 in some states). Never mind that people of sound mind are allowed to choose to take a medicine or not, or to give it to their little children or not, based on their own analysis of the evidence of whether it will or will not be beneficial to them. Never mind that there is no evidence at all that forced schooling does more good for children than can be accomplished with a much more pleasant tasting and less expensive placebo. The placebo I have in mind is unschooling, or democratic/free schooling, where children remain in charge of their own lives and learning, with help when they want it, not coercion, from caring adults.

If schooling were a drug, it would never make it past the FDA. There is no evidence that it creates more benefits than the placebos I mentioned, and there is a lot of evidence that it inflicts serious damage. Here is just some of that documented evidence:

• A large-scale study involving hundreds of students from many school districts, using an experience sampling method, revealed that students were less happy in school than in any other setting in which they regularly found themselves.[1]

• Verbal abuse from teachers is a common occurrence. In one survey, for example, 64 percent of middle school students reported experiencing stress symptoms because of verbal abuse from teachers[2]. Another study revealed that nearly 30 percent of boys were verbally abused by teachers in kindergarten, and the abuse increased in years after that.[3] Surveys of adults indicate that between 50 percent and 60 percent of them recall school-related experiences that, in their view, were psychologically traumatic.[4]

• In a study in which 150 college students were asked to described the two most negative experiences in their lives—experiences that negatively affected their development—by far the most common reports (28 percent of the total) were of traumatic interactions with school teachers.[5] In a study in which adults were interviewed to find out about positive, peak learning experiences occurring in their schooling, few could recall such experiences, but many recalled negative experiences, which interfered with rather than supported their development.[6]

• Hair cortisol levels in young children were found to be significantly higher in samples taken two months after starting elementary school than in samples taken two months prior to starting elementary school.[7] Hair cortisol level is reflective of chronic stress, the sort of stress that can seriously impair physical growth and health.

• A large-scale national survey conducted by the American Psychological Association (reported here) revealed that U.S. teenagers feel more stressed-out than do adults and that school is by far the main cause of their stress (noted by 83 percent of the sample). In the same study, 27 percent of teens reported experiencing “extreme stress” during the school year, compared to 13 percent reporting that during the summer.

• The rate of emergency mental health visits leading to at least one overnight stay (the sort of visits that derive from serious breakdowns or attempted suicide) at a children’s medical center was found to be more than twice as high during school months as compared to summer vacation months (here).

To this add the sheer amount of children’s and teenagers’ time that is wasted by the school system. If you don’t believe it ask the principal of your local school for permission to “shadow” a student for a day—that is, spend the whole school day doing just what the student is required to do. All the adults I know who have done that—including a number of teachers—were shocked at the tedium, the time wasted, during which they were not free to occupy themselves with anything of their own choosing. None of them wanted to do it for a second day. Believe me, children and teens have no more tolerance for tedium than do adults; they just have no choice in the matter.

Noninvasive education as the alternative to forced schooling

Whenever possible, enlightened, conscientious physicians look for noninvasive or minimally-invasive methods to correct medical problems instead of highly invasive methods, such as surgery or toxins, which interfere with the body’s integrity and can cause pain, disablement, or even death. Forced schooling is an extraordinarily invasive educational practice. The noninvasive alternative is self-directed education, as in unschooling or democratic free/schooling. Research conducted to date suggests that these modes of education are at least as effective as forced schooling in preparing young people for adult life and far less disruptive of children’s and family’s day-to-day existence.[8]

But the educational establishment doesn’t want to know about that evidence. Those who profit from forced, intrusive education are like surgeons who profit from surgery and don’t want to know that there are cheaper, less invasive ways of solving the particular medical problem they have been treating. I have on two occasions applied, with colleagues, to major educational research foundations for a grant that would allow for a well-designed, systematic study of both the short-term and long-term effects of standard schooling (both public and private) compared with self-directed education. In both cases the proposal was turned down with no explanation at all and no encouragement to apply again. I hate to sound immodest, but I’ve been in the research business a long time and have reviewed quite a few grant proposals. I know that our proposed study, in both cases, was far more sound in design and addressed questions that are far more crucial to children’s well-being and the future of our nation than is true for most (if not all) of the research studies funded by those foundations. The evidence to me is overwhelming that the educational establishment simply does not want anyone to ask the big question: Is our current compulsory, top-down system of education actually more effective in producing competent, productive, well-employed, happy adults than is noninvasive, self-directed education?

Imagine what would happen if one of the foundations actually funded such a well-designed study and the results came out showing, in a way that was hard to dispute, that the noninvasive procedure works as well as or better than the invasive one. How could they then justify the educational behemoth that supports so many careers and enriches so many companies? There would no longer be a need for university departments of education. The need for teachers would be greatly reduced—down to a small number who would be sought out by self-directed learners because of their skills and knowledge, not because of “teaching credentials.” There would be little need for textbooks; and, without forced consumers of such books, the prices on them would have to drop and their quality would have to increase.

The revolution in education will come, but it will not come from within the educational establishment. It will come because more and more people are using whatever legal means they can to remove their kids from the invasive system. As this happens, over time, an ever greater number of people will know people who have grown up outside of forced schooling and will see that noninvasive education works. At some point, the floodgates will open, and the educational establishment will become irrelevant, eventually extinct. I hope that point comes while I’m still alive. Please help make it happen.

---------

This blog is, among other things, a forum for discussion. Please share your thoughts and experiences relevant to the “do no harm” argument applied to education. As always, I prefer if you post your thoughts and questions here, in the comments section, rather than send them to me by private email. By putting them here, you share with other readers, not just me. I try to read all comments and try to respond to all serious questions if I think I have something worth saying. Of course, if you have something to say that applies only to you and me, then send me an email, but I don’t guarantee an answer because I often receive more emails than I can manage. Also, please keep in mind that I am not a parent coach, and I generally refrain from giving individual advice.

[7] Children’s hair cortisol as a biomarker of stress at school entry Groeneveld et al (2013). Stress: The International Journal on the Biology of Stress, 16, 711-715.

[8] For a review of the evidence and references to the studies see: P. Gray (2016). Mother nature’s pedagogy: How children educate themselves, pp 49-62 in H.E. Lees & N. Noddings (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of alternative education.

My heart sank as a read your article this morning. For two reasons. First, as a child, I underwent a lot of verbal abuse in school. To be fair, I think I talked a lot and rarely paid attention, and I'm sure that really tried the patience of my teachers. At the same time, I remember feeling confused about why I was getting into trouble all the time. This has had a very negative effect on me throughout my life. Secondly, now I am an elementary teacher myself, and while it is my topmost priority to not do to children what my teachers did to me, some days I am so tired and my patience is so tried that, while I never would yell, I do lose my patience and reprimand children in ways that I feel sick about afterwards. And, yes, I have apologized to some of these children later, but it really should never have happened in the first place. In reading your article, it also occurred to me that, as teachers in traditional, or even non-traditional (i.e., Montessori), classrooms, we are put in impossible circumstances: thirty children, in rooms, most of the day, trying to control their behavior, five days a week, often with minimal or no breaks during the day, and often with little or no support or leadership from the school. Why are we doing this to children, and to ourselves? Thank you for your article(s), Peter, which help us to see that a better way is possible.

Thank you, MJ, for this comment, which reinforces my point very well. The verbal abuse of children is not because teachers are, in general, bad, insensitive people, any more than does the children's "misbehavior" come because the children are bad people. What we have here is a very bad situation. If we are honest, we must admit that our compulsory schools are constructed like prisons, where the children have little freedom and almost any form of real self-expression is, in that setting, "misbehavior," and the teachers must be like prison guards, because their continued employment depends upon their keeping order in the classroom. This is an issue of bad design, not bad people. -Peter

MJ, I feel this aspect of your message reveals the major problem with schools. No one responds well to being approached from the perspective of "let me control you." Having directed a school for 9 years I am very familiar with this expectation of schools and teachers but I believe it is completely wrong-headed. In a Montessori classroom with 30 children, we only want 2 adults, because children learn better with greater freedom to work on what interests them, without constant oversight, interruption or direction. Of course, this kind of approach requires that the classroom is full of interesting materials children can use on their own for learning and development, which is not the case in most classrooms. The whole idea that children learn and behave reasonably only with constant adult management is very wrong, and it is a self-fulfilling expectation.

Among the harms inflicted on kids and their parents are the lies that school officials tell to strengthen their grip on their students. A local district superintendent has said that, if a high school junior hasn’t planned carefully since the 9th grade, it’s too late to become college bound. I’ve worked with people with abysmal high school records, and with people who have had radically alternative educational experiences during their teen years, who have reached the highest levels of formal education; they have often started at a community college. Another superintendent of a nearby district recently told a TV reporter that it’s necessary to go to college to have “a real career.” I know many people who have fulfilling and productive careers without having gone to college. As has already been mentioned in another context, school people who propagate these falsehoods are not necessarily bad people; they are simply so immersed in the system and convention that they cannot see outside it.

To readers who may want to know more about some of the young people to whom Wes Beach refers in his comment above, I recommend his books, Forging Paths and Self-Directed Learning, where you can find great examples of people who took the less trod path and have done very well along it.

I agree with your argument, Dr. Gray. "First, do no harm" ought to be a foundational principle for schools and educators. My big question is how we get to that place. I had hope for the charter school movement but, for the most part, the charter schools I've seen are using the same general approach and many are more controlling and prison-like. How do we blow up the system we have developed that has so much inertia? Maybe it requires more parents to refuse.

Ginny, it's always great to hear from you. For reasons I hinted at in this post and elaborated on in others, I don't think we can change the system. What parents can do [not always, I admit] is remove their children from schools, for homeschooling, unschooling, democratic/free schooling, and the like. As more people do this, and as more people see that these alternative paths work, a voting block will develop that demands that opportunities for self-directed education, as opposed to forced education, be made available for everyone. Poor children are no different from rich children. They thrive in a nurturing, supportive, free environment in which there are many opportunities available for them to play, explore, and learn. We need to create such environments for all and simply forget about coercive schools, let them wilt on the vine. -Peter

I agree with Peter that we need to create free and democratic alternatives outside the existing system. I also think it's important to stand up for the idea that compulsory school laws should be removed. Ideas become more acceptable with exposure. The more people hear these "radical" ideas supported by their friends and neighbors, the less threatening the ideas start to sound. New options will evolve more quickly when people become comfortable opting out of state run, or even state accredited, schooling.

As always, you've got the facts and the facts are indisputable. Unfortunately, these aren't new by any stretch. I'd like you to spend a little time at Diane Ravitich's blog and to visit hundreds of other blogs, websites, and organization headquarters where traditional schools are defended with a fierce passion. Failures, if admitted or acknowledged at all, are blamed on "reformers", outsiders, governmental intrusion, parents, etc., etc, ad infinitum. More importantly are those people who derive benefits from the status quo, whom you have mentioned. What they have is an immense amount of power and they will cling to that power to their dying breath. What you are actually challenging is the credentialling system, and the paradigm for establishing merit, accomplishment, competence, superiority, intelligence, etc. I don't doubt you, Dr. Gray, would readily relinquish your professional title of Dr. if it would help alleviate this deplorable conundrum. But schools exist to bestow such honors and recognition and to validate certain efforts and attitudes. It is extremely optimistic to ever imagine that 20 or 30% of the public will opt out of schooling and have affordable, available options. However, even if that were to happen in the next fifty years (after I am dead, although you might somehow beat the odds) the state will not give up its role in programming young people, institutions will not wither away and disappear, and true believers (and paternalistic teachers who see themselves as missionaries to the disadvantaged) will only retreat to a more fortified and reactionary position. I'm not a political scientist, sociologist, or other expert, but I am issuing absolute guarantees. The problem is indeed a legal problem and legal problems MUST be addressed through the legal or legislative systems. The absence of compulsory attendance is voluntary attendance. If you won't fight for that, you aren't fighting for more than a small fraction of kids in the fifty states.

Mr. Lieb,
I believe your comment/question was directed to me, although I can never quite figure out these formats. I don't believe there are any education experts for reasons that would take a month or two to outline. There are lots of school experts, but it is a grave mistake to conflate school with education. I spent at least a full year going round and round with the traditional school advocates on Diane Ravitch's blog and after reading one of her books and parts of others engaged her personally, but she wasn't moved even slightly by my arguments. The cult of school is alive and well. This is why I hold no hope for the "tipping point" theory. The true believers have been converted to the religion of school-as-salvation and social amelioration for twelve intensive years or more and alternatives do not interest them. I have a different idea of education that is very similar to that of Dr. Gray which can be found at www.realchoicesineducation.com. My positions are stated very clearly there.

Loius, John Holt tried having a debate with people who expressed opposite points of view in his book The Underachieving School. Read it to see what a waste of time this kind of thing is. It did at least have one very good essay by John Holt in it, titled "Schools are bad places for kids."

As a huge advocate of homeschooling and a homeschool mom myself, I often wonder what will happen when the educational institution reaches its breaking point with the amount of students being withdrawn. I'm a little concerned that the powers that be may decide to take it upon themselves to attempt to bring back much tighter restrictions on homeschooling in an effort to keep kids in brick-and-mortar schools.

Shelly, thanks for this question. This is a reasonable concern. Barry Elliott (above) no doubt thinks I'm overly optimistic on this (he would put it more strongly), but I do believe in the power of democracy. I think that once there are enough people who pull their kids out for self-directed education, those same people will be a voting block to create opportunities for self-directed education and to get the government out of the business of determining what education means or how it should be measured. -Peter

From what I've seen, the people who are able to pull their children out of school are typically well-off and white. This leaves the poor and brown families who can't get out S.O.L. and at the mercy of the system. We can help educate these families about the self-directed education model, but how do we help them get what their children need when it is out of their reach? While we wait for this ripple effect of this white-flight from public schools, the genius is being snuffed out of so many children in public schools with no choice in sight.

This is a topic I'm extremely interested in. The perception is that self-directed education is out of reach for the poor, but I think it could be immensely empowering for poor communities. Self-directed options are less dependent on money than on community and creative vision. Extended family or friends, a park, and a library are enough to make it work - and even those aren't prerequisites.
There's little doubt that our system of schooling exacerbates class differences, disadvantaging poor children. (Though it's harmful across the social spectrum. Just look at the rates of depression and self-harm in high performing, wealthier, school districts.)
I've had multiple conversations with black families who don't have faith in traditional schools and like the idea of homeschooling, partly just to get away from the eurocentrism of public schools. The idea seems to be catching on, and I really hope it takes off. The more people who do it, the easier it will be for others to believe it's possible.
Its not easy, though. I'm a white suburban mother in a family with two commuting parents. I couldn't figure out how to make this work, either. Nothing was in walking distance, neither of us was at home during the day, we had no extended family in town, and there's no public transportation. We did it for one year. My job job suffered, and we paid for a self-directed learning center that was 45 minutes away. So, yes, money was a piece of the puzzle, but it didn't fix the lack of community.
The biggest factor in making it work, was making it a top priority. I didn't believe it was a viable choice until I couldn't tolerate not doing it.
I think it's possible to make it work anywhere, even with very little money, but you might need a network of people willing to work together for it - and cities have some advantages.
Do you know Akilah S. Richards? She is part of ASDE (as is Peter). Her website is the same as her name - all one word including the middle initial. You might find her interesting.

This is another article well worthy of bookmarking! I am surprised that many vested interests have not tried to silence you as there is no refuting what you say with any form of logical reasoning. Thus the dogmatic orthodox approach is the only way they can attack you: "well, we always did it this way".

There is a far more sinister result of all of this dogmatic and orthodox style of "education" in that it creates and enforces "group think". "What problem is that?" you say for a group of school children. When those children grow up into such a system, they are thus beholden to such a system for their qualifications, job etc. Very much the same way that the Soviet Socialist system created generations beholden to the system. Those people knew that the system was rotten but had to support it or lose their pension, go to a gulag or other punishments. I wager that the "school system" is run identically to the authoritarian way that the Soviet system was run.

My experiences in school were bad and I am now quite antagonistic to anyone who is a "teacher". This is quite unfair to the "teacher", but I do do my little bit, however small it may be to return the "favor".

As a professional, when I have employed people (for certain IT jobs), I have frequently found that people who were self taught were much more switched on and "awake" than the people that could rattle off all the rules and data backwards, but could not produce anything that did not require someone running after them to clean up the mess they made. I accidentally hired one of those people once and regretted it as, although they went through the interview and tests very well, on the job they were useless. It was very sad. They were a nice person, but just not competent in what the idiotic piece of paper said they should have been.

Thus I look at anyone with a "piece of paper" as being inculcated into some sort of group thinkology which bears no relation to actuality. I have worked in many jobs and have used practically nothing of what I had been officially "taught". Luckily I am quite able to teach myself and learn effectively in a self directed manner (maybe some have less of such an ability?). By ignoring all that those idiot teachers taught me has meant that I could adapt and change as times and situations change. It is well known that once one graduates, most of what they have learned has been overturned by the march of technology. Even this simple fact would seem to indicate the stupidity of the current system.

Hopefully we have an economic collapse (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com) and the forced removal of funding would immediately fix the problem of evil schools. Already jobs are shrinking at such a rate as never seen before in history that even a multi-degree will not guarantee a job. So what justification is there in undertaking the huge debt of a student loan with no possibility of paying it back? Eventually economic rationalism will triumph against dogmatism just as the Soviet system collapsed due to mind numbingly idiotic inefficiencies.

In response to Mr. Smith and others, I wish to explain that the consensus here is generally on-target in my estimation, including your observations. However, I think that “groupthink” can often be the consequence of efforts much more benign and well-intentioned than the sort of programmed indoctrination designed and supervised by a tyrannical government or by fanatics of some ideology. In the US, the first issue is the powerful mythology surrounding schooling in which schooling is conflated with education to such an extent that there is no distinction between the two for 99.8% of the population. That mythology is perpetually and continually self-reinforced within the schools.
The second problem is the fact that power, influence, and credibility are granted to selected individuals whose main objective is to shore up the “system”, to protect their own interests, to inculcate students at all cost and regardless of resistance, to deny criticism or culpability, and to quickly and quietly squelch dissent.
The pervasive mythology and the powerful authoritarian (both in terms of control and in terms of enjoying the perception of having expertise and knowledge or authority with respect to pedagogy and “education”) work in tandem to exert an irresistible force throughout society and at all levels.
What I have called the cult of school is much more than a religion or an ideology. It is a worldview and an identity that have deep unconscious roots and are bolstered by strong emotion. They have paternalistic elements and moralistic overtones and they defy analysis or awareness. The existence of wonderful alternative islands of hope and encouragement do not have any appeal to the true believers. They are not enticed by schools that offer liberty or quality as you and I might define them.
For fifty years I’ve been hearing that the schools would “collapse of their own weight”. What is not understood is that a majority of Americans don’t actually value education and they have been made anti-intellectual by their school experience, they don’t look to schools to educate, and schools have never existed for the purposes of educating or providing authentic educational opportunities. They will back the public schools as traditional bastions of goodness, just as I saw a few hours ago in a TV ad produced by the NEA, to their dying breath.
The elite or merely fortunate citizens who are concerned with training in democratic principles will continue to cluster in the Sudbury type “free” schools. Their children will be less dissatisfied and less neurotic or as easily manipulated. But, democracy is under siege in this country and elsewhere as a form of government precisely because schools have no desire to promote democratic principles despite their loud proclamations to the contrary.
Democracy diminished and fatally compromised will not save us from mediocrity and ultimate destruction. Economic collapse will not change minds about schooling and will likely lead to doubling down. Either the people who are alert and who care will demand that the schools no longer be prisons for any child, or they and their perverse bureaucratic and authoritarian administrations will continue for many more generations to capture, control, and intensively condition through behavioral modification as many children as they can get their hands on. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but if there were going to be a “tipping point” or critical mass, it would have happened a century ago when there were plenty of people disgusted with the oppressive environments of schools.

In a post above, William Smith mentions “evil schools.” In her book “The Atrocity Paradigm: A Theory of Evil,” Claudia Card writes that good people can do evil things, and that evil is to be judged, not just on the intentions people have, but also on the consequences of their acts. (I don't consider myself exempt.)

Years ago, at the high school where I was then teaching, I was angered by false information provided by a counselor about the California High School Proficiency Exam (CHSPE). Teens are eligible to take this exam if they’re 16, or through or near the end of the 10th grade; if they pass it, they receive a high-school-diploma-equivalent certificate and can leave high school. (Compulsory education in California goes to 18.) The certificate by itself allows them to enroll at California community colleges.

In an experiment fueled by my anger, I called ten high schools in different school districts, asked the same two questions about the CHSPE, and heard exactly zero completely accurate answers.

Also years ago, a 16-year-old high school student (not at one of the schools I had called) told me that she had told her counselor that she desperately wanted leave high school and go on to the local community college. The counselor, ignorant of the CHSPE or unwilling to reveal it, said that there was no way to do this.

At roughly the same time, a mom whose daughter had left high school early and moved on to college, told me that her daughter’s experience in high school had been so terrible that it had made her suicidal, and that her leaving high school may very well have been life-saving.

So, conceivably, a high school counselor who can’t or won’t provide information about the CHSPE could contribute to a suicide. So might other false statements, some of which I’ve described above.

This very well-written and on-target article is in today's special edition of the New York Times Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/magazine/fortress-of-tedium-what-i-learned-as-a-substitute-teacher.html?_r=0

Submitted by David Brooks (not real name) on January 11, 2018 - 1:38am

Actually Stephanie, if you read the comments to ANY NY times editorial you will see that they quickly devolve into insults, snarky jokes, and angry denunciations. Its why I no longer read the NY Times comments section, although I continue to occasionally read some of the editorials.

This resonates so well with me, Thanks Peter, for keeping us all inspired. I was a Middle School Principal for a number of years and I used to 'be a student for the day' every three or four weeks. I would literally cancel all my appointments, put someone else 'in charge' and join the classes of either a 6th, 7th or 8th grade student. I even gave myself a locker and spent recess with the kids too. Another important aspect of this experience was I did the homework. The days were exhausting and demoralizing. It made me aware of what the children go through and inspired me to try to force change within the system. I introduced (with the reluctant help of most of my colleagues) a new homework policy (I wanted to scrap homework completely - but that met SO much resistance from parents and staff alike). I introduced 'Big Ideas' weeks where kids were off schedule for a week and they could work on what they were interested in (again with resistance from many) and I tried hard to redesign the schedule to allow for more recess and longer classes etc. I slowly realized that it was almost impossible to change things from within. I could make small, incremental changes which I know benefit the students but at the end of the day they were still not free to be who they wanted to beAnyway the upshot of the whole experience of 25 odd years of being part of that coercive system is that my wife and I moved from Europe to Montana where we set up a 'Sudbury Inspired' school. We have just started our 3rd year with 27 students and I can honestly say that the experience is the best I have had-EVER. Finally I can be around children who are free and who learn what they want to learn.

Thank you for sharing this story, Ben. I think reports like this, from people who were long in the standard system and tried to reform from within, are the most powerful testimonies for encouraging families to leave the system and find self-directed educational routes. -Peter

Show the need.
A simple example - Americans learn English as their language. Even a mountain hillbilly learns English - school or no school. But our hillbilly acquaintance may shun learning about the stock market. What need does he have of knowing that? But I'll bet he has a TV in his mountain domicile.

A fifteen second advertisement comes on the TV saying -- go to channel 513; learn about Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Our hillbilly gets disgusted and goes to the TV to switch channels. Oops, he's too slow, another ad comes on -- go to channel 313, learn about chain saws, how to start them, what size to own, etc. He listens to the ad and goes to channel 313 and learns about chain saws.
Well, to him the value of that old black and white TV just went up. He listens to a few more 15 second ads; his curiosity increases. He learns other things he thought he would never want to know, or never thought possible for him to know.
Would this hillbilly eventually realize the value of being educated?
I'll bet he would.
How would you bet?

I think if a research study like the one you proposed directly confirmed the rich circumstantial evidence out there, then we'd have stronger basis to fight for what might as well be a social justice issue. Parents/kids should have a right for the best form of education we know of. So, I guess the more we know, the more evidence we gather, the harder it is for anyone to turn a blind eye and the sooner the possibility of a tipping point.

If you don't mind me asking, how much money was the grant for? Perhaps we can set up a crowd-sourcing project. I would like to be involved.

I would help and spread the word for grant funding. I am a college English teacher and use Gray's "School is a Prison and Damaging Our Kids" (from Salon) as the opening article in an argumentation unit about education. My students, for the most part, are in strong agreement with the main arguments. I feel that there are many people who would gladly contribute.

The issue is that we really need solid, publicized evidence to convince parents, who see the supposed rigor of schools and testing as contributing to student success. If this myth is exploded and lower stress, equally (or more) effective Democratic schools are publicized, I think we have a hope for significant, widespread change.

Personally, I am deeply frustrated that the closest Democratic school is 2+ hours away from me in Kokosing Valley, Ohio. We have thought about homeschooling our son--who really struggles with the pressures of typical school environments--but he very much craves a peer community, and we would have a harder time providing that while homeschooling (and he doesn't want to be homeschooled). I think he would thrive in a Democratic school, but that isn't an option right now for us.

If you don't mind me asking, how much money was the grant for? Perhaps we can set up a crowd-sourcing project. I would like to be involved.

These were exactly my thoughts. I would definitely be interested in contributing towards your proposed research, and strongly suspect that a lot of other home educators would gladly do so too.

I left school aged 18 with very good exam results but failed my first year exams at University, predominantly because having found schoolwork mostly fairly easy I no longer knew how to learn, or how to motivate myself. I left University as a "drop out" and did not return to any kind of learning for almost 10 years, when I began studying towards a distance learning undergraduate degree with the Open University.

The other reason I failed at University was that I became very unwell - years of being a victim of bullying in school had taken a serious toll on my mental health. The argument I keep hearing from the "establishment" is that attending school teaches social skills. Well for me, the main social skill I learned at school appears to have been how to be an easy target to bullies, as I have also experienced serious bullying in the workplace resulting in my Psychiatrist repeatedly advising me to quit my job. I also suffer from social anxiety, so I think it is safe to say that school did not equip me well to deal with society!

In contrast, my son is home educated in a predominantly self-directed manner, and thrives on it. His innate curiosity has never been squashed out of him, and following his lead has resulted in us learning together about all sorts of things that I would never have pursued by myself. He views anyone as a potential friend and will happily converse and play with people of all ages, from toddlers through to the elderly, without any hang-ups. So maybe school is not necessary for the development of social skills after all?

I too would like to be involved, and I think many others would want to fund this kind of research. I believe that funding the research that Dr. Gray proposes is one of the best investments we can make for the next generation.

I am a public school teacher, but my philosophical views are more and more coming into conflict with the philosophy of traditional schooling practices. Somehow I made it out of my 19 years of schooling with my curiosity and eagerness to learn still intact (my GPA was correspondingly low, average of about 2.5). I became a teacher hoping to share my spirit of learning with students, but I'm realizing that the forces working against that spirit are too great to overcome (i.e. compulsory education and increasing evaluation). I want to instead be part of a movement that will allow children the freedom to learn in the way they're meant to.

I don't have school age children yet, but I have already decided that they will be unschooled or in a democratic school. I anticipate much disapproval from my entire social group. Personally, I want to donate what little extra money I have to this research solely for more evidence to show my family and friends who disapprove of my unpopular choice in education for my children.

Dr. Gray, if you're reading this, please let me know what I can do to help get this project funded, whether it be through crowdsourcing, lobbying, or whatever needs to be done.

Thank you to those suggesting the idea of crowd funding for the research comparing consequences of standard and self-directed education. The project we had applied for would have cost over $200,000--not huge for a research grant, but a lot of money to expect from crowd funding. Also, it would require the participation of many conventional schools as well as unconventional ones, and getting that participation would be easier if funding came from a well known research foundation. Moreover, I'm concerned that a research project of this sort funded by crowdfunding would not be taken as seriously by the powers that be as one that went through the review process that is required for funding through the granting agencies. So, we are still considering what to do. Crowd funding may well be a reasonable course for a smaller, less expensive research project. -- Thank you all, again.

Please forgive me for this challenge. It is offered in the spirit of a friend. I empathize with the conflicts I imagine you encounter between your academic position and your personal beliefs, but the irony still needs to be acknowledged. It sounds like you, of all people, are clinging to the validation that comes from established academia. Yes, being taken seriously by the established powers seems like a prerequisite when you are hoping to influence those powers - but isn't this the same pressure parents feel when we submit to conventional schooling because we are afraid to send our children into the world without the security of conventional academic credentials from conventional schools? This need for validation and respect is certainly what drew me down the wrong path.
You yourself say that educational solutions need to come from the outside. Perhaps this also applies to the current problems with academic research. It is in great need of a push toward freedom.
The idolatry of academia's approval needs to be confronted. Our intense competition and skewed values in childhood education are fed, in large part, by the exclusivity and prejudices of established academia. This is why academics have such a hard time dismissing their belief that public schools are the saviors of our country's children. Public schools serve Academia, even when failing to raise most children into its exclusive ranks. (Which would be logically impossible. Raising most children to its ranks would negate its exclusivity.)
If the real goal is to democratize learning, it should go hand in hand with democratizing higher education and avenues for research.
I don't mean to say that universities and the academic research that happens within them aren't necessary. I think they probably are. I mean to say that the attitudes of exclusivity and prejudice that distort the powers of research in academia are the same attitudes of exclusivity and prejudice that allow for top down control of public education based on the authority of academic credentials.
So what can be done?
If we recognize that the value of research is dependent not only on the quality of its design and execution, but also on its acceptance by the scientific community, and on its reception by popular media, then these are the various nuts to crack. I think, though, that it is a mistake to put academia above popular perception, or to believe that popular perception has to rely on acceptance from the scientific community coming first.
What better funding source could there be than crowd-sourcing when the topic is democratic control of personal learning? Isn't getting the research into the public discussion a separate problem from getting it peer reviewed and accepted into prestigious academic journals? Maybe you would get more success by approaching the problem of public discussion first, and then using the power of public debate to fuel the interest of academia.
Perhaps you need to couple the research study with a report that hits a different type of readership than the scientific research community. The Atlantic and New Yorker, for example, seem to be very willing and eager to publish articles on controversial topics on education and research.
So, if by chance you were actually able to raise enough funding through crowdsourcing (which might be possible), an accompanying social interest article could be published explaining the premise, structure, and purpose of the research and explaining why it was necessary to use alternative funding sources. It seems to me to be an extremely timely topic of interest. If it catches people's interest it night be picked up and discussed in myriad news and media channels.
Am I naive to think that this kind of public spotlight would make it more likely to draw the interests of peers and publishers when the research is completed? Am I naive to think that an article like this could be published? Probably. Perhaps the trick is to find the right author to write the accompanying article. Not because someone else would write it any better than you, but because it needs to be framed outside your personal interests, and an author who already has a relationship with these publications might be able to get it published.
A well written article about the research and about the difficulties inherent in funding research that is threatening to academia could be as influential as the research itself.
I suppose people would try to expose its findings as biased by its funding, but research is clearly being biased by its funding now, as much by the selection of studies as by their findings. We need alternate research channels.
Like I said, please forgive me for this. I realize that I'm offering an armchair critique based solely on conjecture. I just think it's time to expose the connections between damaging childhood education and academic exclusivity, and be willing to step outside of the comfortable respectability that exclusivity provides.
I absolutely love your positions and your voice. I admit that your standing as a professor gives you credibility that is both useful to the cause and useful to me personally when I want to back up my positions to people who are blinded by academic prejudice. I'm tired, though, of having academic prestige, controlled by spurious exclusivity, be the tyrant that controls our academic freedom.

I too would like to be involved, and I think many others would want to fund this kind of research. I believe that funding the research that Dr. Gray proposes is one of the best investments we can make for the next generation.

I am a public school teacher, but my philosophical views are more and more coming into conflict with the philosophy of traditional schooling practices. Somehow I made it out of my 19 years of schooling with my curiosity and eagerness to learn still intact (my GPA was correspondingly low, average of about 2.5). I became a teacher hoping to share my spirit of learning with students, but I'm realizing that the forces working against that spirit are too great to overcome (i.e. compulsory education and increasing evaluation). I want to instead be part of a movement that will allow children the freedom to learn in the way they're meant to.

I don't have school age children yet, but I have already decided that they will be unschooled or in a democratic school. I anticipate much disapproval from my entire social group. Personally, I want to donate what little extra money I have to this research solely for more evidence to show my family and friends who disapprove of my unpopular choice in education for my children.

Dr. Gray, if you're reading this, please let me know what I can do to help get this project funded, whether it be through crowdsourcing, lobbying, or whatever needs to be done.

Please do not ever use the oxymoron "compulsory education". If it is compulsory, it cannot be education. These are wholly antithetical concepts. Hearing that obnoxious combination should be like fingernails on a chalkboard and should always be corrected. The ONLY reason we are having this whole conversation is because it has been erroneously believed that passing a law can somehow result in education, when in fact the law is precisely what prevents education in schools.

It is compulsory attendance. The laws across the USA (I have not checked them all) only require attendance, not that a child become educated. It punishes parents who fail to get their children to schools or fail to provide a reason acceptable to the school (parents should have the right to excuse their child from school for any or for no reason so long as the child is not harmed, which could be defined as not progressing from grade to grade with a minimum overall GPA, perhaps a C or C+). But, there are not compulsory "education" laws in the USA.

I agree with the points raised in the article AND with the comments posted here. What is contributing to (or caused the acceptance, even the DEMAND for) public schools was the increasing need of families to have a baby-sitting service for their children while the parents either wanted or felt the need to work (or just to get the "break" from parenting). Parenting can be difficult, for some, perhaps many, and our society revolves around the infant years, that quickly become daycare or playgroups (for the benefit of the parents more than for the children), then become the "our child is going to school" years during which the parents have all day either to work, to address other adult responsibilities, or just to have time off. Parents have reaped what they have sown and created the behemoth that now controls them and their children, to the dismay of many. May we all join forces and push back and change the paradigm . . . and do right by our children, for their sake and for the sake of our society.

Evolution has decreed that, in order to stay with the newly formed brats ("infants" if you wish), there must be a chemically induced "bonding" experience in order that the new parents don't abandon the brat. It is enforced as instinct in nature and for the rest of the animal kingdom. It is not such a stretch to say that the exact same thing is in operation with human mammals as well.

I believe that there is a covert type of dummification that goes on as an adjunct to the process. Many a time have I seen parents make criminally illogical decisions because : "he/she is my precious." If one were to provide logical arguments, they would be ignored by hormonal or irrational emotionalisims. Usually it is the female that is most affected, however the male is brought into the madness with covert threats to withdraw sex if : "you don't do what I want". (which has already been pretty much withdrawn in a lot of cases because of the hormonal "maternal bonding": but he is to stupid to see that)

Thus you have completely criminally irresponsible hormonalism which is making the decisions. What an easy target for "other forces" to use, and what an easy target to dupe.

Man did not create this, as evolution has been the big driver. However the complete refusal to use even a tiny dot of intelligence is clearly the fault of the parents. As long as parents are complete imbeciles (and their brats know this very well!), then there will never be a solution unless one is rich (as is the case with almost everything else).

They say that "it takes a village to raise a brat". The current western situation of a "nuclear family" is just plain ignorant! The whole religionist methodology of "marriage" must be rend asunder. It is also a contributing cause to all of this. Of course, most will say I am just plain mad for saying such things: to you, I would say: "check your hormones!"

My experience with the very broken and corrupt medical establishment is what allowed me to quickly see how sick the educational system is. (Pun intended.) It's lovely to think that doctors follow the "first do no harm" part of the oath, but they rarely do so. The medical and educational systems are both excellent examples of government control and manipulation gone horribly wrong.

The medical and school establishments are not that different. First do no harm cannot apply when even doctors are not educated in true health but instead by the pharmaceutical companies making trillions of dollars making people sick. Vaccines are the biggest con we have and are devastating thousands of families worldwide all of which is kept hidden. Cancer and its treatments are another. Get out of the school system and educate yourself about health, open your mind and be free!

I enjoyed this article and I am fully sold on the idea of self directed learning - as a playworker and someone who enjoyed school but feel I lost some originality through being compliant and no longer know what motivates me outside of a classroom.
However, when considering what a new version of "learning for all" might look like; I can't see how most parents could continue to work unless they send children to an unschooling centre. Could this offer the same level of childcare without being a private funded exception removed from the real world, or state sponsored and therefore tied to outcomes? At the moment I see affluent, able white kids getting homeschooled and accessing part time childcare with a self-directing ethos. How in practice would this work for children with impairments or those from deprived backgrounds who arguably need it most? I would appreciate it if someone can direct me to some reading which explores these topics.

I am a home educator and unschooling my two children in the UK. I am a single mum and was on state benefits until my youngest turned five and then i set up as self employed running a club and workshops for children that are home educated and also working as a childminder so other home educating parents can work. Over here most home educators are low income families and we make it work. School is not childcare!

Oh I agree, Amy, it's not childcre, mostly because there's not the time and space to care. I guess I was making an oblique reference to idea put forward in one of the first things that started me down this thought-road: https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms
The idea that schools as they are now are still the Victorian (at least, in UK systems and history) answer to how to get workers into factories and train new workers in their children. So much of modern society is based on this and we no longer have village communities so I wonder how all parents would be able to have time alone, with their children and with other children. It seems like such a distant impossible dream and I'm interested in any policy making and research which explores this political-economic aspect.

Having home educated my children in the UK for the last five years i can see how it is possible. We have huge networks of home educating families working together to provide all the opportunities that are available to children. We are now spoilt for choice there is so much. From where i live we have about 10 large groups, spread over three counties that are near enough to travel, set up by home educating parents. Most are in a town or village hall. They provide socials, classes such as sports, science, arts as well as more academic and exams for older ones. They also organise workshops at various places, visits and meet ups. We have parties, sports days and put on plays. The opportunities are endless and it is at a very low cost. This is how the future of education will be, places that provide these kind of things for children to choose what they want to do, people of all ages getting together and learning from each other, and doing useful things out in the real world. Its already happening here in every town and city and i imagine it is the same in the US. One day it will be the norm and we will look back on school as something horrific they did to children in the past.